HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.526 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2022 in IA.No.545 of 2022 in OS.No.99 of 2016, passed by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Ilyas, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Khuzaimah Jamali, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6-Telangana State Wakf Board and Sri S.R.Mahajir, learned counsel for respondent No.7-Aga Khan Trust for Culture.

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 8 are defendant Nos.1 to 8, respectively, in the suit before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that:

4.1 The petitioners, claiming to be interested persons under Section 3(k) of the A.P. Wakf Act, filed the suit in representative capacity to protect a notified Wakf property spread over Acs.103-30gts in Hyderabad, containing historically and religiously significant structures linked to the Qutub Shahi dynasty. They sought to declare the agreement dated 16.05.1977, allegedly transferring custodianship of the Wakf to Respondent No.4 without necessary approvals, and the MoU dated 09.01.2013 between defendant Nos.3 and 4 and defendant No.7 without the Tribunal’s leave or any statutory sanction, as null and void and other reliefs.

4.2 In the plaint, the plaintiffs alleged encroachments, unauthorized constructions, desecration of graveyards and violation of the A.P. Ancient Monuments Act, 1966 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule property, despite interim injunction orders passed by the Tribunal. Prohibitory orders passed by the Tribunal attained finality, yet respondents allegedly continued unauthorized activities in the schedule property.

4.3 During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.545 of 2022 praying to direct the respondents to produce the following documents:

“a. Gazette Calling for the objection from the Citizens before conferring the powers to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to enter into transaction being MoU acted 09.01.2013 with respondent No.7, in respect of the plaint schedule of said property.

b. Gazette Notification permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to transact with respondent No.7 in respect of the plaint schedule of said property.

c. Original sanctions or permission in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 empowering them to transact with respondent No.7 in respect of the plaint schedule of said property.”

and prayed for striking off the respondents' defense in the event of their failure to produce the same within the time fixed by the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and inter alia contended that there are no documents in its possession in order to produce the same and that there is no violation of MoU and Archaelogy Rules and hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

6. Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 8 also filed counter denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and inter alia contended that as per the agreement dated 18.08.1966, Nizams had appointed respondent No.4 as custodian of the monuments and that as per orders, dated 29.10.2013, passed in SR.No.7346 of 2013, respondent No.4 was permitted to undertake general maintenance and upkeep of all the existing subject monuments and as such, there is no violation of any Rules framed under the Act and prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The Tribunal, considering the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, passed the speaking order dated 08.11.2022, whereby the said application was partly allowed, directing the Respondents to produce any Gazette Notification issued by respondent No.1 authorizing respondent Nos.3 and 4 t